<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>scotus &#8211; EFR Technology Group</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.efrtechgroup.com/category/scotus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.efrtechgroup.com</link>
	<description>We maintain technology so you don't have to!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:15:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Supreme Court rules generic website names can be trademarked</title>
		<link>https://www.efrtechgroup.com/tech/supreme-court-rules-generic-website-names-can-be-trademarked/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Randall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[booking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[booking.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domainname]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poltitics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scotus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supremecourt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent and trademark office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uspatentandtrademarkoffice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uspto]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.efrtechgroup.com/supreme-court-rules-generic-website-names-can-be-trademarked/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[ad_1] The USPTO, among others, suggested that allowing Booking.com to claim the trademark would harm other travel companies with the word &#8220;booking&#8221; in their domain names. Federal trademark law defines generic terms as those that don&#8217;t make a service or product distinct from other ones. It prevents companies from staking an exclusive claim to commonly [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [ad_1]<br />
</p>
<div>
<p>The USPTO, among others, suggested that allowing Booking.com to claim the trademark would harm other travel companies with the word &#8220;booking&#8221; in their domain names. Federal trademark law defines generic terms as those that don&#8217;t make a service or product distinct from other ones. It <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90523114/why-the-supreme-court-says-booking-com-can-trademark-its-name-and-why-it-matters" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prevents</a> companies from staking an exclusive claim to commonly used words such as &#8220;tailor&#8221; or &#8220;laundromat&#8221; in store names.</p>
<p>Booking.com claimed that people associate its brand with reservations and that denying its trademark application could lead to consumers becoming misled. In writing the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">majority opinion</a>, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with the company, suggesting that public perception of a name is the core issue. </p>
<p>“[If] Booking.com were generic, we might expect consumers to understand Travelocity &#8212; another such service &#8212; to be a Booking.com,” Ginsburg wrote. “We might similarly expect that a consumer, searching for a trusted source of online hotel-reservation services, could ask a frequent traveler to name her favorite Booking.com provider.”</p>
<p>“Because Booking.com is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic,” Ginsburg determined. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Booking.com, with Justice Stephen Breyer dissenting. The decision paves the way for other companies with generic terms in their domain names to trademark them.</p>
<p>The case was the first one for which the court used a teleconference system for oral arguments, with justices working remotely due to COVID-19 prevention measures. Those arguments were also the court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.engadget.com/supreme-court-broadcasts-oral-arguments-live-225549891.html">first to be livestreamed</a>.</p>
</p></div>
<p>[ad_2]<br />
<br /><a href="https://www.engadget.com/supreme-court-bookingcom-trademark-151505520.html">Source link </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court broadcasts oral arguments live for the first time</title>
		<link>https://www.efrtechgroup.com/tech/supreme-court-broadcasts-oral-arguments-live-for-the-first-time/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Randall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 22:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[coronavirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[covid-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[livestreaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scotus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tv]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.efrtechgroup.com/supreme-court-broadcasts-oral-arguments-live-for-the-first-time/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[ad_1] CNBC noted that this pioneering case is relatively unremarkable, revolving around a Booking.com attempt to trademark its name. There’s an incoming surge of higher-profile cases coming during this period, though, and the teleconferences might just shape perception of both the cases and the Supreme Court itself. As a general rule, the public only learns [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> [ad_1]<br />
</p>
<div>
<p><em>CNBC</em> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/listen-live-supreme-court-broadcasts-oral-arguments-for-first-time.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noted</a> that this pioneering case is relatively unremarkable, revolving around a <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-31-russia-fas-antitrust-investigation-booking-com.html">Booking.com</a> attempt to trademark its name. There’s an incoming surge of higher-profile cases coming during this period, though, and the teleconferences might just shape perception of both the cases and the Supreme Court itself. As a general rule, the public only learns about the inner workings of cases once there’s a verdict. This expands the potential audience to many more people and might prompt calls to broadcast arguments even when life returns to normal.</p>
</p></div>
<p>[ad_2]<br />
<br /><a href="https://www.engadget.com/supreme-court-broadcasts-oral-arguments-live-225549891.html">Source link </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
